Arguments

Josh
We did decide to do that. However, you seemed to decide it was better to talk down to me instead. I answered a question asked to the best of my knowledge. You came in and instead of providing a counter argument or saying “let’s take this to the harvester forum” offered nothing more than saying my answer was making up rules and based upon gut reaction. That is not productive. If you expect I won’t answer questions that don’t have a 100% rule written, that isn’t going to happen.

I very clearly indicated why I was drawing the conclusion I did. Unarmed is the only way to fight with two weapons while potentially making another attack, and it’s a rather one off case. Given PCI’s past rulings on issues of getting around existing rules with unintentional benefits from fringe cases, I extrapolated how I think PCI would rule it, based upon other rules. However, you kept claiming emotional reaction and using examples that weren’t pertinent to the discussion (dark kin with charges and horns, e.g.) also I never once said TWF can’t be done with a shield and Another weapon, only that the shield benefit would likely be lost during the action.

You are free to feel how you want, but I am in no way making an emotional argument, but based on extrapolating rules and logical consistency. When an explicit rule does not exist for a one off case, the first thing to do is to extrapolate from rules written and draw on what we have seen PCI do in the past. I have no skin in the game on the issue; however, you have admitted to designing a character using the method, if anyone is making emotional pleas, it would appear to be you. I would never try to stifle creative ideas or concepts, but in also fear that consistency and fairness are paramount. You have stated to me I should play the game within the rules given, and I would urge you to do the same, even when the rules don’t go your way.

In the end, Pedro made a PCI call that happened to agree with my original assessment. I would have been fine either way, but you then chose to respond to an unrelated reply with a snarky comment. If he later changes his mind, I will be okay with it as well and abide by whatever he says.

In the end, it was your constant personal negative assessment of my “abilities to answer the question” that I felt were personal attacks. Instead of offering up your own logic at first, you just continued to lambast me based on your own feelings. In the future, it would be best to make counter arguments and mention taking it behind the scenes if you feel that we need to do that.

On a personal note, I am not sure why you would think I’m replying based on emotion, but if you have a personal problem with me, I would rather you told me so we could work it out. I have found your insight valuable in the past and while I don’t think we always agree on things, I would expect the discussion to stay focused on point-counterpoint instead of making judgment calls on the others ability to make the argument in the first place.

If you or others feel I was wrong in this whole discussion after reading the posts there or here, let me know. I do not want to create friction or the appearance of discontent anymore than you do and can remove myself from further discussions if needed.

John

to be clear, i dont have a personal problem with any harvester.

my problem was the complete lack of logic behind your ruling

2) For balance, I would say you lose the benefits of a shield while TWF with unarmed strikes. After all you are contorting your body in such a way as to knee, kick, or elbow slam someone. That puts your shield out of position to effectively block an attack.

there is nothing to back up what your saying there.

to be clear, i dont have a personal problem with any harvester.

my problem was the complete lack of logic behind your ruling

2) For balance, I would say you lose the benefits of a shield while TWF with unarmed strikes. After all you are contorting your body in such a way as to knee, kick, or elbow slam someone. That puts your shield out of position to effectively block an attack.

there is nothing to back up what your saying there.

I go into great detail in subsequent posts about the logic and consistency backing up my answer, which you’ve chosen to ignore. There are many questions on the boards that do not exact answers in the rules and which we extrapolate an existing rule or mindset for. If you feel that harvesters need to always agree on our answers, then I would say that it is worse when one seems to be doing other than trying to undermine the other. I’m honestly done with the discussion as we are not going to see eye to eye.

If a third party, another harvester, Matt, or PCI, wants to make a judgment call on my arguments, that is fine. However, I don’t have the energy to keep repeating myself over and over. I am done commenting on the issue as long as your comments are not directed at me like asking “what I made a stink about” something when all I did was answer and back it up with rules that exist.

John